Judges in Texas Voter ID Case Question State Data on Bias

July 13 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. judges weighing whether a Texas
law on voter photo identification may keep minorities from the
polls in November expressed doubts that the state can rely on
social-science data to prove the measure won’t result in bias.

Texas, in closing remarks today after a weeklong trial in
federal court in Washington, argued that the judges should look
at studies of other states that imposed photo ID laws rather
than data on Texas voters. The three-judge panel hearing the
case honed in on that contention.

“Shouldn’t we rely more on what is in the state of Texas
than on generic social-science data?” U.S. District Judge
Rosemary Collyer asked John Hughes, a lawyer for the state.

Texas, one of eight states that passed laws last year
requiring a photo ID to vote, is seeking court approval of the
measure, arguing it’s needed to prevent electoral fraud. The
Justice Department, which claims at least 1.4 million residents
lack the required identification, says Texas’s rules are the
harshest and place a “new and substantial burden” on
minorities’ ability to cast a ballot.

Collyer, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said
that the panel hopes to issue a decision “in quick order.”
Texas told the court earlier that it needed a decision by the
end of August for the law to be enforced in the November
elections.

Voting Rights

The case marks the first time a federal court will rule on
the Obama administration’s efforts to use the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 to block a state photo ID law.

Texas is one of 16 jurisdictions with a history of voting
rights violations that need approval from the Justice Department
or a federal court in Washington to change election procedures.

The state’s data included voting information from the 2008
presidential election and the 2010 midterm elections in Georgia
and Indiana. Turnout among minority voters increased after
identification laws were enacted, Texas argued in court papers.

Hughes said the department had no answer for this study and
that it was “shifting the goal posts” to keep the law from
being approved.

Social Science

U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins asked Hughes whether
Texas cited the social-science data in its letter to Attorney
General Eric Holder seeking his support for the law.

Hughes said the state didn’t.

“What I’m failing to understand is how the attorney
general could be arbitrary or capricious because he didn’t
consider an argument that was never made,” said Wilkins, a
President Barack Obama appointee.

U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel, nominated by President Bill
Clinton, said the circumstances in Georgia or Indiana may be so
different that they don’t “translate equally” into Texas.

Under the law Republican Governor Rick Perry signed last
year, voters who arrive at the polls lacking one of the
specified forms of state or U.S.-issued photo IDs, would be
given a provisional ballot. College or university IDs aren’t
among the authorized documents. Permits to carry a concealed
handgun are.

Approved ID

Provisional ballots would count only if voters bring an
approved ID to the registrar’s office within six days of the
election.

The law exempts mail-in ballots and voters with significant
disabilities or religious objections to being photographed.

The requirements “entail minor inconveniences on
exercising the right to vote,” Texas Attorney General Greg
Abbott said in his initial court filing.

“The Obama administration’s challenge to the Texas voter
ID law is nothing more than a political charade,” Abbott said
in conference calls with reporters today.

Groups that intervened to oppose the law said the costs
associated with obtaining identification, along with lengthy
distances to public safety offices, would have greater effect on
minorities and the elderly.

“This is not a minor burden we’re dealing with,” Ezra
Rosenberg, a lawyer for some of the groups, told the court.
“It’s going to affect those people who need the protection --
the low-income minorities and the elderly, who fought for this
right to vote.”

Increased Burden

The Justice Department, which in December stopped a similar
statute in South Carolina, claims the law, officially called
Senate Bill 14, or SB14, would increase the burden of casting a
ballot in person for more than a million Texas voters.

“The record in this case shows that SB14 would prevent up
to 10 percent of voters from voting on election day,” Matthew
Colangelo, a Justice Department lawyer, told the judges in his
closing argument.

Hispanic registered voters in Texas are from 47 percent
to 120 percent more likely to lack the required identification
than non-Hispanic voters, the Justice Department said in a
letter to the state in March. Hispanics account for 2.81 million
of the state’s 13 million registered voters.

Texas called the Justice Department’s estimated number of
affected voters “highly-inflated” and accused the department
of relying on a database analysis that didn’t examine whether
its list included deceased people or those who had moved out of
state. They noted that former president George W. Bush was on
the list of Texas residents who supposedly didn’t have state ID.

Citizenship Records

Lawyers for Texas said the Justice Department never
analyzed whether these potential voters had acceptable federally
issued identification such as passports or military or
citizenship records.

Texas also said that Stephen Ansolabehere, the Justice
Department’s expert witness to assess the effect of the law,
found in 2008 that 70 percent of Hispanics and blacks support
identification requirements.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the burden is on
Texas to show that its law wouldn’t have a “retrogressive
effect” on minorities or was enacted without a discriminatory
purpose.

Wilkins said there was testimony at trial that some
residents must travel more than 100 miles to get to their public
safety office. The judge then noted that federal rules restrict
subpoenas that require witnesses to travel more than 100 miles.

“How is it unduly burdensome for a subpoena and not unduly
burdensome to drive 100 miles to get an ID to vote?” Wilkins
asked.

Hughes said that people who live in rural parts of Texas do
so by their own choice and driving long distances is a “fact of
life.”

The case is Texas v. Holder, 12-00128, U.S. District
Court, District of Columbia (Washington).